meara time:

Like Raquel, I think the Scouring of the Shire is the heart of the book. It brings it all home to the hobbits, and sets up Frodo leaving for the Grey Havens. And yet I'm glad it's not in the movie. I think most moviegoers would be somewhat bored and confused by it ("why are they fighting again? didn't they win already? why hasn't the movie ended yet?")--those who hadn't read the books, anyway--and I'm not sure it would have translated well onscreen. So I miss it in theory, being one of my favorite sections of the book, but I think it's just as well it's not there.

In a friend's LJ, I've been discussing with someone whether or not the end of the book is depressing. She's very mad that PJ gave the story a Happy Hollywood Ending, and I've been disagreeing with her on two counts: 1) I think the end of the book is certainly sad but also hopeful, with Frodo finding peace on the ship to Valinor and Sam going home to rebuild the Shire and lead the kind of life Frodo sacrificed himself to save; and 2) I don't see the movie as having a Hollywood Ending (says the girl who wept buckets through the last half hour--twice so far). I think it preserves the melancholic feel of the book pretty well. Thoughts?

Am I the only Arwen/Aragorn fan here?

No, at least not book!Arwen. I never wanted Eowyn/Aragorn from the books.

That said, am I the only person who returns to the books and doesn't imagine the movie actors? They just fall away.

Again, no. I remember being almost surprised at how easy it was to forget the actors' faces when reading the book (same thing with HP, actually, for which I am grateful). Though I haven't reread since after FOTR came out; I wonder if it would be different now, having spent more time with the actors. (And I agree with tina and others, Sir Ian is Gandalf!)

I liked Gimli much more in ROTK than in TTT, for the reasons ita mentioned: I felt we were being invited to laugh at his jokes, not at him, and he didn't seem the boor that he came across as in the first two movies. I know the dwarves are supposed to be somewhat boorish (at least compared to the elves), but that scene in Lothlorien where he says "I have the eyes of a hawk and the ears of a fox!" (or insert appropriate animals here, I don't recall exactly) and then turns around to find Haldir's guards surrounding him... eh. Don't like it. He was much more competent in ROTK. (Okay, so he kicked more ass at Helm's Deep than on the Pelennor Fields, but he came off much less oafish on the whole in ROTK.)

As for Theoden, here's where I'm glad I don't know much about warfare and proper tactics etc., because I got to concentrate on him being all noble and kingly without thinking "dude, you've got a much better chance if you attack from over here" or whatever. When the muster of Rohan is gathered at the camp, after Aragorn leaves for the Paths of the Dead, and Theoden has his line about "We can't beat them, but we will meet them in battle nonetheless!" I did have a moment of thinking "okay, not the best plan," but then I remembered that, well, they're pretty much fucked either way if Frodo doesn't destroy the Ring, so they may as well do their best to take out as many of the enemy as possibly before they die.

I liked the Legolas vs. Dumbo scene, and it didn't particularly pull me out of the movie. I have a high tolerance for CGI, though, unless it's egregiously bad. I didn't even realize until just now that of course it must be at least partially CGI-Legolas as well. Hmm. Didn't bother me. Whereas the horse trick in TTT still doesn't quite work right for me, and totally threw me when I first saw it. And I hate the shielf-surfboard bit. And I'm a big geeky Legolas fangirl!

I have more to say about Faramir, but I need to organize my thoughts. I loved him in the book, and when he first showed up and was all mean in TTT, I was pissed. But he more than makes up for that in ROTK, and even in TTTEE. The first time I noticed that he's holding back tears when he releases Sam and Frodo was when I started to love movie!him. And I don't care if he's a big TolkeinSue, though I'm not sure I agree. I love what he represents, and I think he's an interesting character in his own right.

Oh, and I just wanted to brag here that my housemate and I are in the local paper's article about Trilogy Tuesday, which just came out today. He only got our first names and didn't quote us or anything, but he did say that we were there FIRST!

Right. The absence of minor characters like Ioreth and Bergil and Beregond, while cutting down the twee factor by 96%, also rendered Minas Tirith a giant wasteland of strangers, plus pitiless Creon Denethor.

That sort of texture problem I expect to be remedied in the EE, but it's a sign they just couldn't get all the story into 3+ hours.

Now see, as a non-reader, I did not feel there was a Happy Hollywood Ending. I felt it was that Good triumphed over Evil. But I also feel that in order to triumph, there must be struggles. And there were. That Fellowship met up with evil and forces that they didn't even knew existed (at least, the hobbits) and forces and evil that in the Shire, they had never given a thought to. But when they did come up against it firsthand, they fought for their Shire and the life they knew and loved. I feel so sad for Frodo, that after all of that, know ing what he knew of the "world", that he couldn't stay there. It honestly makes me want to weep for him. And I love that when they came back (MM told me all of this), and saw that a couple of people were being dicks in THEIR home land and weren't, by Gods, gonna take it and strapped them over a barrell. Rock on little ones!!

Letterman's top ten list last night was "Top Ten Dumb Guy Complaints about Lord of the Rings."

10. "I expected something, you know, more Hobbity"

9. "'Middle Earth' scenes clearly shot on regular Earth"

8. "It was real long and not a cartoon"

7. "I accidentally put butter on my Twizzlers"

6. "My name is Stu -- how come there aren't any Hobbits named Stu?"

5. "Where the hell is Chewbacca?"

4. "If they're going to have magic, why not bring back the rapping kangaroo?"

3. "Couldn't focus on movie -- kept thinking about how I blew all my money on the Giants"

2. "I kept trying to talk to Frodo, but he ignored me like he's 'all that'"

1. "I haven't seen it yet -- I'm too busy governing California"

his uncorrruptibility serves a real purpose in the books, by telling us there's some reason to help Gondor.

Hm, that's a good point. In the movies, the good guys (other than the Fellowship) are represented by a country run by a madman and a country run by a guy with a death wish and no tactical skills. Not much to root for, when you think about it.

Middle Earth' scenes clearly shot on regular Earth

Hee!

t rereads post

Hmmm...I made no sense in that last one, did I?

You did, Aimee. A lot of sense.

Okay, good. Becasue between my love for the movies, which keeps growing, too much chocolate and my new nails, which I'm not used to, I'm not sure about anything I type.

Given that I was upset because movie!Faramir does not have black hair like book!Faramir, let alone the fact that he's a completely different person, I think I've come a long way in accepting that there's this character who is Boromir's brother and has some family issues. Kate and Sean and others who like movie!Faramir make some good points, but I'm not sure what he added to the movies, other than extending Frodo and Sam's trek. And of course nookie for Eowyn, subtly suggested.

I would also argue that Gandalf and Galadriel are seriously tempted by the ring. They both say they've been tempted, but it's so tempered with wisdom as to not represent a threat. Neither tries to take it. Aragorn is not tempted one whit, and neither are any of the rest of the Fellowship. So why is Faramir not good enough? It's insulting that Denethor believes Faramir is weak and useless; how much more insulting that the screenwriters clearly believe it also?